Making the case for “Rape Case Anonymity” of accused defendants case

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which first introduced anonymity for complainants, also provided for anonymity for defendants: apparently for the purpose of providing equality between complainants and defendants, and to protect potentially innocent defendants from stigma. However, this provision was repealed in 1988 and people accused of sexual offences therefore no longer have any particular entitlement to anonymity, it has now again been the subject of debate.

During the passage of the Sexual Offences Bill in 2003, an amendment, later to be defeated, was introduced in the House of Lords that would have granted limited anonymity to suspects and defendants in cases involving sexual offences. Lord Ackner moved a clause that would have granted defendants the same right to anonymity as complainants, the Home Affairs Committee also came out in favour of anonymity for the accused; however, the Government rejected the arguments behind the new clause and it was subsequently removed by the Commons (338 votes to 173)

Now it has been brought forward again – a proposal had not appeared in either party’s election manifesto, although both parties had spoken in support of some form of defendant anonymity during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Liberal Democrats had formally adopted it as a policy at their 2006 conference, which make the attacks of Kerry McCarthy in last night adjournment debate especially disingenous. Caroline Flint at the forefront of the attack goes onto to launch the standard line about women coming forward after the accused are named.

I’m dismayed. You could potentially attack the idea of ‘innocence before proven guilty’ under such reasoning. In reality, yes, the law does protect people who are accused of crimes. I’m afraid that we can’t sacrifice that principle purely because any accuser/victim wants to feel more comfortable reporting crimes.

Yes, publishing the names of the accused may have substantial benefits – for example, more women might come forward. However, in every area of criminal law, we must assume that people are innocent before they are proven guilty. People could simply accuse an innocent person of raping them solely so that their life is ruined. It happens – and it’s unacceptable. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provided that evidence of the defendant’s ‘bad character’ or hearsay evidence may be admitted in some circumstances has led to the situation being even worse.

We should treat people as an end in itself, not a means to an end. A person ought to have rights – and the right not to be vilified as a potential rapist when you could, potentially, be innocent seems like a very decent right to have. That right shouldn’t be trampled over despite a competing objection that it would help in rape cases, for else the accused merely turns into a pawn/tool for the government so that they can get more convictions to boost their stats on rape cases. I value my right not be treated as (and associated with being) a rapist before an actual conviction has been made; and I don’t see how it should be trampled over just because the ‘mob’ desire it, or because it allegedly produces more convictions. Newspapers give a great deal of coverage of the opening of a trial with full details of the defendant, but by the time the trial ends, if the defendant is acquitted it has ceased to be newsworthy and the acquittal is not reported. It would be a serious advance if we did provide anonymity for both parties. It is time to end this injustice.

That is not to say that rape is not a very serious crime – it is. The rights and welfare of the victim are vital, and we should all be committed to ensuring that every victim of rape has access to appropriate support. In particular, the coalition are looking to establish new rape crisis centres where there are gaps in provision and to put funding for such centres on a stable and long-term footing. There are 39 such centres and they are looking at the possibility of a further 15, as noted by Baroness Stern’s review on helping the victims of rape. There are also a number of things the police could do a great deal better. Some women are treated with suspicion and dismissive comments. Others felt that lack of a specialist support officer hampered their chances of recovering and ensuring that the rapist was brought to justice. Baroness Stern recommended more specialist advisers, greater training, and more ‘intelligence-led’ policing, all of the things we should be looking to support.

Honesty is also required if we are to attaince for everyone in society – There is a misinformation put out by many, including in debates recently about the low conviction rate for rape (‘94% of rapes don’t end in conviction’ is the standard line). The rape conviction rate is then compared unfavourably to conviction rates for other crimes. Yet this is a myth. The conviction rate for rape is between 50-60%, which is higher than for most other crimes, the amount of hysteria being spread about these false statistics must be stopped, they are the people that have contributed to the publics scepticism of rape accusers, despite them claiming that allowing for anonymity may throw their claim into doubt. They are wrong. Allowing for anonymity of the accused would completely rid the image of a victim making false accusations for publicity or revenge.

Those attacking this proposal claim they are fighting for ‘womens rights’. I myself, would much rather argue for Human rights, the right to be innocent before proven guilty, the right for victims to be given the care they need, and the right for everyone to acquire justice.

There is a Facebook group in support of the proposals here. and a petition can be put together if people think it’s worthwhile to do so.

Related posts:

1. The Case Of The Spanish Economy Illustrates The Progressive Case Against The Euro
2. One way out of this mess hasn’t been discussed: the case for a National Government
3. A Case For Radical Reform of Public Sector Broadcasting
4. The Case For Ken